Navigate:

Battle of sound bites reaches health care

Text Size

-

+

reset

Bush is expected to veto the SCHIP bill any day now, and the battle over the future of the program will continue as Congress attempts to override the veto.
John Shinkle

In the battle of sound bites over President Bush’s expected veto of the children’s health insurance bill, the White House position boils down to this: Beware, beware — it’s the first step toward federalized health care.

Nonsense, say supporters from both sides of the aisle , who swear they would never vote for a bill that was the proverbial camel’s nose under a tent on government-run health care.

But a look back at the fine print of the 1993 “Hillarycare” debacle shows there may be a grain of truth in the Republican suspicions — and also demonstrates that the GOP believes there is still significant political power to be mined from one of the Clinton administration’s greatest political and tactical failures.

Back in 1993, according to an internal White House staff memo, then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s staff saw federal coverage of children as a “precursor” to universal coverage.

In a section of the memo titled “Kids First,” Clinton’s staff laid out backup plans in the event the universal coverage idea failed.

And one of the key options was creating a state-run health plan for children who didn’t qualify for Medicaid but were uninsured.

That idea sounds a lot like the current State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which was eventually created by the Republican Congress in 1997.

“Under this approach, health care reform is phased in by population, beginning with children,” the memo says. “Kids First is really a precursor to the new system. It is intended to be freestanding and administratively simple, with states given broad flexibility in its design so that it can be easily folded into existing/future program structures.”

The memo was sent to Politico by a Republican congressional office.

But the document is part of a trove of paperwork released as part of a 1993 lawsuit between the Clinton health care task force and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign did not dispute the intent of the 1993 memo but pointed out that Clinton herself never publicly pushed the Kids First concept and that covering children first was just one of several options laid out during the mid-1990s debate.

The Clinton campaign also asserts that the 2008 campaign has learned lessons from 1993 and has embraced a health care plan that places the uninsured on subsidized private health plans.

Her campaign also says she never endorsed a government-run, single payer system.

“This whole notion about a government takeover [of health care] is absurd,” said Chris Jennings, who was a White House health care analyst and congressional liaison in 1993 and is now an outside adviser to the Clinton campaign. “[The SCHIP legislation] is financed by the government and contracted out to private insurers. It’s not a government takeover by any definition.”

Yet the legacy of “Hillarycare” and the intense debate this fall over SCHIP shows that both parties are still trying to come to terms with the future of American health care.

Readers' Comments (24)

These kids aren't poor. They're just lazy, and so are their parents. It's a lifestyle. It's better to spend $ 3 billion a week in Iraq. Socialized medicine comes straight from Stalin. All countries that have it are communist. We ought to invade them, see how they like that. They even have waiting lines at the cemetery.

I don't consider 300% over the poverty mark poor. I don't consider it wealthy either. I honestly don't know if this bill is being reported accurately to the public, it gets hidden behind emotions when kids are involved.

These kids aren't poor. They're just lazy, and so are their parents. It's a lifestyle. It's better to spend $ 3 billion a week in Iraq. Socialized medicine comes straight from Stalin. All countries that have it are communist. We ought to invade them, see how they like that. They even have waiting lines at the cemetery.

These kids aren't poor. They're just lazy, and so are their parents. It's a lifestyle. It's better to spend $ 3 billion a week in Iraq. Socialized medicine comes straight from Stalin. All countries that have it are communist.

Glad to see you gave up your kool aid for a week and are coming around to rational thinking.

I totally agree with you Lek - any family more that makes more than 3 times the poverty rate is definitely not poor.

I think you are a little over the top with the communist / Stalinst comments, but would agree with you that countries that have socialized healthcare like the UK and Canada have proven to be ineffective and long waits for care -- this is why many Canadians (including from the Prime Minister's family) come to the US to see a specialist.

I don't consider 300% over the poverty mark poor. I don't consider it wealthy either. I honestly don't know if this bill is being reported accurately to the public, it gets hidden behind emotions when kids are involved.

This has nothing to do with childrens health care it has all to do with Middle class entitlements.

Yup jinks...Hillary and the Dems not only want me to buy healthcare for middle class kids, but floated the idea of a $5000 "baby bond" for every kid...so I can pay for their college or the down payment on their house. Geez-us...us DINKS (dual income, no kids) are going to have to support the whole friggin' country, under the Dems socialist paradise.

For those of you who are half asleep here is the next Bush Iraq scandal "Blackwater" It seems the Democrat Congress unable to legislate must investigate: have discovered one of "Bush's hand pick contractors" and have found them guilty of murdering 195 innocent Iraq civilians. Ted Kennedy or Chuckie Shumer will be rushing to the mike to condem Bush and his war.

Yup jinks...Hillary and the Dems not only want me to buy healthcare for middle class kids, but floated the idea of a $5000 "baby bond" for every kid...so I can pay for their college or the down payment on their house. Geez-us...us DINKS (dual income, no kids) are going to have to support the whole friggin' country, under the Dems socialist paradise.

Oh by the way put on your Iron jockstrapp you taxes will go up just a bit.

Glad to see you gave up your kool aid for a week and are coming around to rational thinking.

Nah, I'm afraid you got me all wrong here. I see I have to be more sarcastic in the future not to be misunderstood. I'm not going to waste my day getting into a health care debate. Have a good one, jonsey.

The way Bush and congress let health care and the pharmaceutical industry "run wild" in this country over the last 7 years, something has to be done. Hell, if you want surgery at a REASONABLE price you now have to go to Thailand! Costs roughly 1/2 what it costs here and doctors are American trained. It's ok to spend 190 billion on the Iraq war, but NOT 35 billion on children's health care, so, lets throw the baby out with the wash water rather than benefit children. Thank God this man's days in office are numbered. (2008)

The way Bush and congress let health care and the pharmaceutical industry "run wild" in this country over the last 7 years, something has to be done. Hell, if you want surgery at a REASONABLE price you now have to go to Thailand! Costs roughly 1/2 what it costs here and doctors are American trained. It's ok to spend 190 billion on the Iraq war, but NOT 35 billion on children's health care, so, lets throw the baby out with the wash water rather than benefit children. Thank God this man's days in office are numbered. (2008)

Glad to see you gave up your kool aid for a week and are coming around to rational thinking.

Nah, I'm afraid you got me all wrong here. I see I have to be more sarcastic in the future not to be misunderstood. I'm not going to waste my day getting into a health care debate. Have a good one, jonsey.

Gee I guess I was the only one who got it!

I knew you would never turn down a socialist benefit freebie for anything!

Don't worry the 50% of Americans still paying 97% of the taxes still have some left to give.

It's for your kids, right?

How could I or anyone refuse to give up what we have worked for our whole life just because you can't or won't take care of your kids?

I don't see why you want me to pay for your 25 year old children, but obviously you see the need, so how can I refuse?

How about you, what do you need for yourself?

Do you ledderjoke, need even more government benefits to make you completely happy?

I know your just doing this for your kids, so why not throw in free health care for yourself while your at it?

Don't worry about me and the others on Social Security Retirement benefits as we still have to pay about $200 a month for part B and the advantage health plan unless we have NO ASSETS and qualify for Medicaid for our health care.

How about a new car, new golf club membership, some extra spending money, whatever you need Mr. ledderjoke, that you didn't earn during your life?

It's just for YOUR KIDS NOW, but it eventually will trickle down to YOU and that's what your ultimate goal is, right?

How can we the 50% that still pay taxes, make you other 50% that don't pay taxes, happy?

The way Bush and congress let health care and the pharmaceutical industry "run wild" in this country over the last 7 years, something has to be done.

Gee what happened the previous 30 years with health care cost?

Mine always went up and that was before Bush, so why?

Well count up the billions for illegals immigrants and others that don't pay their medical bills over the years and then the Medicare and Medicaid fraud and the countless lawsuits and rediculess settlements and you want your medical costs to go down?

Yea the only way to do this is get the government to take over everything right?

Wonder why Health Care is so expensive? Try "trail lawyers". Folks its the amount of law suits and the high payouts that is partially fault for high insurance costs.. Also insurance companies denie coverage to people, knowing that states/feds will pay them too to cover people. I am not going to stand for paying for insurance for 25 year olds and middle class americans. If they want insurance, they can continue to pay for it. The democrats are using Schips for a poltical gains, not to benefit the children. If they really cared, they would have sent a reasonable bill to be passed. Can some one explain how if you at $35 billion to a program, how would that decrease the number of children covered? Is it because the insurance companies raised their prices (for big profits) or is it another lie for poltical gain. Stop the give away programs and teach people to take care of themselves. Stop raising taxes and keeping people on governement handouts. for many generations

The repubs need to come up with an ad like this just to debunk some myths. HELLO CITIZENS. IM HERE TO SHOW WHAT WE'VE BEEN ACCUSED OF JUST ISN'T TRUE. FOR INSTANCE THAT WE'RE AGAINST SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. LOOK AT IRAQ. WE FOOT THE BILL FOR ALL MEDICAL FOR CHILDREN IN IRAQ, RICH OR POOR. WE FOUND IT SUCH A RESOUNDING SUCCESS THAT WE GAVE IT TO ALL IRAQIS, RICH OR POOR. SO WE'VE BEEN WRONGED ON THAT ACCOUNT. NEXT THAT WERE AGAINST THE COST OF IT IN THIS COUNTRY. TO SHOW YOU THATS NOT TRUE EITHER LETS GO BACK TO IRAQ AGAIN. LETS START WITH THE CLINICS WE BUILT THERE. WE DON'T GIVEA CRAP THT THE MAJORITY OF CLINICS PROMISED WERE NEVER BUILT. AND SOME OF THE ONES THAT WERE BUILT SO POORLY THAT THEY CAN'T BE USED. BIG DEAL ITS ONLY MONEY. WHO CARES THAT MOST HOSPITALS AND CLINICS HAVENO MEDICINES OR SUPPLIES BECAUSE ITS ALL FOUND ITS WAY TO THE BLACK MARKET. BOTTOM LINE IS WHO CARES THAT THERES A SHORTAGE OF CLINICS, THERES NO DRs TO WORK THEM SINCE MOST HAVE LEFT THE COUNTRY ANYWAY. THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT WE BE CHARGED FOR ALL THIS. SO THATS PROOF POSITIVE THAT WE COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THE COST OF MEDICAL CARE. THE DEMS ACCUSE US OF HATING OUR COUNTRY. THATS JUST NOT TRUE. WE LOVE OUR COUNTRY, ITS JUST AMERICANS WE HATE. i THINK A 60 SEC SPOT LIKE THIS COULD HELP DISPELL THE FALSE HOODS AND REALLY HELP THE REPUBS IMAGE.

It seems to me that there are an awful lot of folks who think that words like "socialized" and "Federalized" are all the argument they need to demonstrate that any kind of government-financed health care is a boondoggle and assault on taxpayers. Who do they think pays for the health care the poor are now entitled to by showing up at emergency rooms? Don't the hospitals finance those services by padding their bills for those patients who have insurance? Is it unreasonable to think that hospitals might stop padding the bills of paying customers if they were assured of being paid when they provide services to indigent patients? Lower health costs in exchange for higher taxes might be a bargain worth examining. And then there are the fears of "government-controlled" health care. Compared to what: "Insurance company-controlled" health care? You don't have to own stock to have a chance to overthrow a bad government in an election, but good luck finding a way to get rid of insurance company management.

A good way to cut into insurance company management is through Health Savings Accounts. Up to so many thousands of dollars expended in any given calendar year, you decide what health care you need and who provides it. Beyond the X thousands (you pick X) all the insurance company does is reimburse you. Read about it: